It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's War: Is he going for broke?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   


President Obama will deliver from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point a speech, scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. EST and last about 30 minutes, announcing his intended policy for Afghanistan.

The buzz surrounding this speech is already at a fevered pitch... ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS, CNBC, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox Business Network, Fox News Channel and MSNBC have all announced their intention to carry the speech live.

International media outlets are stand poised....




Obama's "Finish the Job" Talk Sets Stage for Afghan Troop Surge

President Obama plans to formally announce on December 1 his decision with regard to the request from some of his more ambitious generals for a massive troop surge in Afghanistan.

But indications are that the president who was elected to set a new course for the nation when it comes to foreign policy will instead "stay the course" set by his quagmire-prone predecessor.



The consensus appears to be that he will authorize nearly 40,000 additional troops. Yes, most of the troops are tired....yes, many have been deployed and redeployed a number of times....and yes, .....they.....will....be....very.....expensive...




At a time when Mr. Obama is vowing to reduce sky-high deficits, he must make the case that the price tag roughly $1 million per soldier is justified.

Link.



M'kay. That's not cheep.





So it is no surprise that one of Mr. Obama’s senior aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged Tuesday that the forthcoming speech was a “potential minefield.”

...


...the Dutch and the Canadians are both scheduled to be pulling their troops out of Afghanistan just as Mr. Obama is putting more forces in. In quiet meetings over the past month, American defense and national security officials have been trying to forestall those departures, while obtaining commitments of increasing numbers of troops from NATO allies.

So far, the administration has been successful only with the British, who have pledged an additional 500 troops. Germany, Italy and other NATO contributors have been silent, explaining to their American visitors that the war has become so unpopular at home that they can barely sustain the troop levels now in place.



Doesn't look too good, does it?




"We are in year nine" in Afghanistan, Gibbs told reporters. "We're not going to be there another eight or nine years."

Link.



Maybe, maybe not...

The realities are just setting in, aren't they?





Obey is offering what could well be the most effective congressional challenge to Obama's plan. The appropriations committee chair argues that the expanded mission is simply unaffordable.

Surging more troops into Afghanistan will "wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy," says Obey, who explains that if Obama goes for an expanded war: "There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan.

Link



Obama faces other Congressional challenges:




...anti-war activists stepped up their activism on behalf of congressional measures that would limit the scope of the war and begin a process of bringing the troops home.

In particular, they focused on a bill introduced by California Congresswoman Barbara Lee, HR 3699, which would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for more combat troops to Afghanistan, and another introduced by Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern, HR 2404, which calls for the development of a clear exit strategy.

Tom Hayden, the former California legislator and anti-Vietnam War activist who has positioned himself as prime mover in the movement to prevent an escalation of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, says the Lee and McGovern bills "provide space for the peace movement to organize in local communities across the country during the next six months."

That's right.

Lee's amendment has 23 cosponsors, McGovern's has 100 --including several Republicans.



Notwithstanding the threats from some in Congress, it appears very clear what Obama is telling some in the world:




But for years, throughout the Bush administration and into the Obama administration, American officials have been making trips to Pakistan to reassure its government that the United States has no intention of pulling out of Afghanistan as it did 20 years ago, after the Soviets retreated from the country.

Link.



And it looks to be clear what he intends to tell the American people:




Obama indicated on Tuesday that he plans to expend a good deal of political capital to promote what is effectively becoming his war. "I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive," he said.

Link.



History may view this speech as one of the most pivotal moments of Obama's administration.

Is Barack Obama going for broke?




-----

For additional reading pleasure:


The decider.


The quiet American.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by loam]




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Obama hates America. His tactic will be to hinder the troops with some rag-tag incremental placement of a couple of thousand of people a month. He will not end any war because he is being paid in some way by TPTB.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I'm usually not much for this sort of thing, but being that some folks hold that 'TPTB' are numerologists, I find it interesting that tomorrow's date is 12/01/09? Do a lil' math, and you get 1+2+0+1+0+9= 13. Just thought I would throw that out there, seems more than a little coincidental.

Chrono



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Obey and others (including Pelosi) are considering a War Tax to cover the costs incurred with troop surge...


David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and other leading Democratic congressmen who have proposed a graduated war surtax beginning in 2011 to pay for U.S. military efforts going forward. The amount of tax collected would have to be sufficient to cover the full war costs of the previous year.



"Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for," Obey said in a statement. "The only people who've paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families."



Obey believes that: if the cost of the Afghan war isn't paid for it will "wipe out every other initiative that we have to try to rebuild our own economy."


link



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
He is playing a political game to make both sides happy at the cost of our soldiers lives. He could care less about the soldiers unless he can use it to look good. If we are going to fight a war fight it to win forget this PC bullsh*t or dont fight the war to begin with. If we are not carefull we will fall asleep one night and wake up in france.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Interestingly, I ran across this open letter from Michael Moore:

An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore




Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That's the way General Washington insisted it must be. That's what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. "You're fired!," said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea -- "Let's invade Afghanistan!" Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin.

There's a reason they don't call Afghanistan the "Garden State" (though they probably should, seeing how the corrupt President Karzai, whom we back, has his brother in the heroin trade raising poppies). Afghanistan's nickname is the "Graveyard of Empires." If you don't believe it, give the British a call. I'd have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number. I do have Gorbachev's number though. It's + 41 22 789 1662. I'm sure he could give you an earful about the historic blunder you're about to commit.

...



The irony on so many levels is pretty surprising...

Don't you think?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam


President Obama will deliver from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point a speech, scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. EST and last about 30 minutes, announcing his intended policy for Afghanistan.

The buzz surrounding this speech is already at a fevered pitch... ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS, CNBC, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox Business Network, Fox News Channel and MSNBC have all announced their intention to carry the speech live.


And that is the whole point, this is a public relations stunt, President Obama will use this speech at West Point to display himself with the military backdrop as a perfect stage (props included) providing a false image to the public.

He badly needs a boost in the polls right now, and this "big show" is his best opportunity.

Then he can go back to the white house and focus on his forcing his destructive agendas through, with an anticipated bump in poll numbers.

There is no change here, no surprises, simply politics as usual, playing politics with a war, and with the lives of American soldiers who have lost confidence in their commander and chief.... The questions is, can he fool them as well?




[edit on 1-12-2009 by Walkswithfish]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   









posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
No... he's not going for broke, it's just a matter of a little and too late...



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join